Understanding Vibrant: Algaefix, Polixetonium Chloride / Busan 77

[Duffer]

You guys are giving him a hard time but could be he’s just a contrarian. I’ve been accused of that. Although it is odd he came directly to this but I’ll give him the benefit of doubt since I’m not going to start accusing others without facts. Plus we all have the same right to post our opinions. Even if it’s not what aligns with us.

That said. UWC better have an ironclad explanation of how it’s not as being claimed by these tests or how they got scammed because I don’t see this ending well for them. My point on how many pages in we already are plus didn’t even mentioned the fact there’s several other threads going. Funny if UWC seen driving a white Bronco running from the Tang Police

The difference here is when he asks a question or contradicts others the scientists point him in the direction and show him his opinion doesn’t hold water…from there he keeps on either ignoring them or just stirs the pot more…I’m all for others to have different views but when you come in as a new member just to cause crap in a topic where you don’t post anywhere else my senses point me in the direction he has agenda to cause headaches…

 

[GARRIGA]

The difference here is when he asks a question or contradicts others the scientists point him in the direction and show him his opinion doesn’t hold water…from there he keeps on either ignoring them or just stirs the pot more…I’m all for others to have different views but when you come in as a new member just to cause crap in a topic where you don’t post anywhere else my senses point me in the direction he has agenda to cause headaches…

Does seem odd if he doesn’t post elsewhere.

 

[Malcontent]

Could make for a good movie. Not sure how it ends though. Good night world

Maybe a miniseries...

All companies should be on gaurd, we as hobbyists know that these over inflated products are not necessary. The emergence of a new poster, challenging the data, at the same time frame that the UWC spokesperson is supposed to be following up, is quite a coincidence, or not. As someone who worked in the industry, I am not surprised at all. Like "Thrive" for example, the inner story of the shenanigans is simply mind blowing! Not the story hear, but suffice to say, some companies are just ruthless. I truly hope that this company stays in the light, leaving no dark place to hide.

We have a dysfunctional entrepreneurial class where it's acceptable to "fake it until you make it" and more.

There's currently a Theranos miniseries on Hulu which will be joined by one about the rise and fall of WeWork next week on Apple TV+.

 

[taricha]

I continue to feel that I am watching a dress rehearsal. If true, you can expect to see that the Vibrant defense will be an aggressive attempt to discredit the NMR data.

Right. This makes more sense than the face value interpretation:
hobbyist who joined last sunday just to ask questions in this thread, then asks those questions, has the questions directly, quickly, and thoroughly answered by people with deep expertise, then decides they know better than the people they supposedly joined to ask questions to (Randy is apparently "misleading" and isn't reading the right papers )

I agree that their posts are only really interesting if indicative of Vibrant's position.
If that were the case, (just a guess) it suggests that Vibrant may intend to provide NMR that will be totally different than what JDA and I found or anyone else would find if they had it tested. With an attempted explanation of small amounts of phantom substances "masking" or "interfering" in my and JDA's samples that had to be removed first to show the "real" vibrant NMR. (That nonsensical explanation has already been addressed by RHF and others.)

You guys are giving him a hard time but could be he’s just a contrarian. I’ve been accused of that. Although it is odd he came directly to this but I’ll give him the benefit of doubt since I’m not going to start accusing others without facts. Plus we all have the same right to post our opinions.

yeah, Dan's and my guesses could totally be wrong and UWC is just about to post confirmatory data and "come clean", and maybe this account is just an unrelated contrarian.
But, still doesn't make their posts scientifically interesting or worth engaging. RHF's explanations here in post 761-766 are pretty clear about the suggestions put forward by them being distracting or easily checkable false information.

(aside: Garriga, some saw your earlier expressed desire for confirmatory data as distrust of me and criticized you for it. I never took it that way, because I knew that barring an admission from UWC, you would eventually get your independent confirmation data soon enough - one way or another.)

 

[GARRIGA]

Right. This makes more sense than the face value interpretation:
hobbyist who joined last sunday just to ask questions in this thread, then asks those questions, has the questions directly, quickly, and thoroughly answered by people with deep expertise, then decides they know better than the people they supposedly joined to ask questions to (Randy is apparently "misleading" and isn't reading the right papers )

I agree that their posts are only really interesting if indicative of Vibrant's position.
If that were the case, (just a guess) it suggests that Vibrant may intend to provide NMR that will be totally different than what JDA and I found or anyone else would find if they had it tested. With an attempted explanation of small amounts of phantom substances "masking" or "interfering" in my and JDA's samples that had to be removed first to show the "real" vibrant NMR. (That nonsensical explanation has already been addressed by RHF and others.)



yeah, Dan's and my guesses could totally be wrong and UWC is just about to post confirmatory data and "come clean", and maybe this account is just an unrelated contrarian.
But, still doesn't make their posts scientifically interesting or worth engaging. RHF's explanations here in post 761-766 are pretty clear about the suggestions put forward by them being distracting or easily checkable false information.

(aside: Garriga, some saw your earlier expressed desire for confirmatory data as distrust of me and criticized you for it. I never took it that way, because I knew that barring an admission from UWC, you would eventually get your independent confirmation data soon enough - one way or another.)

Glad you didn’t take it as me distrusting you. I’m used to being criticized, unfortunately.

 

[Courtney Aldrich]

Okay, I just keep reading about how analyzing metabolite mixtures via NMR requires special attention to sample conditions because pH and ionization can cause issues (including peak shifts).

I don't really understand why the metabolite line of questioning hasn't been given adequate consideration throughout this. People keep saying it's impossible but nobody has actually said why and none of the assays were really designed to test it using deductive reasoning. After some looking, it seems reasonable that something like cyanophycin synthetase and the colinium cation could work and still explain the quat aspect of things.

Avidhexgrammid says "I don't really understand why the metabolite line of questioning hasn't been given adequate consideration throughout this. People keep saying it's impossible but nobody has actually said why and none of the assays were really designed to test it using deductive reasoning."

Response: There has been no line of questioning of metabolites. Quaternary ammonium compounds do not have ionizable groups since they are always charged and their NMR is largely pH independent.

Avidhexgrammid says "After some looking, it seems reasonable that something like cyanophycin synthetase and the colinium cation could work and still explain the quat aspect of things."

Response: Please provide your references and/or sources. After some looking, your suggestions do not seem reasonable. Cyanophycin synthetase is an enzyme that makes cyanophycin. Cyanophycin is a biobiopolymer, which is insoluble at physiological pH and ionic strength, has a high polydispersity with a molecular weight range of 60,000-100,000 Da, so cannot be the same compound isolated from Vibrant (ref: Biomacromolecules 2004, 5, 1166-1176). Moreover, the 1H NMR is completely different (ref: Biochim Biophys Acta 2001 Apr 3;1526(1):5-9). What is the "colonium cation"?

Please try to address the data presented rather than gaslighting.

 

[jcolliii]

I wish I was being paid to engage here because you guys sure are exasperating. I can assure you though, I have no affiliation with UWC.

Before anyone asks again: no, I will not advertise my identity on a public forum to appease an angry mob, nor should I have to for my comments to be considered.

Your comments are meaningless without having built a repertoir of postings that demonstrates your ability or knowledge. Think about the context of your posts here - are you really that naive to think that a new member, coming in to a very specific, chemistry-related topic, and casting doubt in a systematic way on the work of others - who are well-known members of a community - will be perceived as anything but troll or shill? You reek of shill. Please, enlighten us on your chops so that we can understand the expertise that you bring to this conversation and on which your seeming misunderstanding of peaks on NMR spectra is based.

 

[jeffww]

Imagine people at a party trying to figure out who crapped in the punch bowl and someone coming in and saying it was bigfoot. Everyone would think they were the culprit. That's what this sounds like.

 

[Sean Clark]

 

[avidhexagrammid]

Response: There has been no line of questioning of metabolites.

That's the problem.

Quaternary ammonium compounds do not have ionizable groups since they are always charged and their NMR is largely pH independent.

Alrighty.

Response: Please provide your references and/or sources. After some looking, your suggestions do not seem reasonable.

I already provided a multitude of sources formatted as hyperlinks in a previous comment. Reef tanks aren't maintained at physiological pH, but okay. I don't understand how it's so preposterous that the proenzyme could be maintained in the bottle and become activated by potassium and magnesium ions in tank water. Cyanophycin is a suggested pathway for nitrogen uptake, I'm not saying it's correct, I'm saying it's feasible and that you guys have neglected to consider (and rule out) practical alternatives to your conspiracy theory because of how you've framed your hypotheses. Choline seems to be a much more compelling argument anyway with the data that's been collected here.

Please try to address the data presented rather than gaslighting.

I don't see how what I've said could be perceived as gaslighting. I'm suggesting an alternative hypothesis, not making anyone question their own reality. If anyone here is somehow questioning their reality because of something I've said, then they probably didn't have a firm grasp on it to begin with.

What is the "colonium cation"?

As indicated previously: choline is a naturally produced QAC that has lytic properties on algal cell walls. Since you guys seem to prefer to observe similarities instead of considering potential differences, let's gaze upon an FT-IR spectrum of choline chloride from this paper. Shall we superimpose it with that of Vibrant? Shall we acknowledge the subtle changes that occur when it's mixed with another compound and the concentration is varied? Shall we recall that all analyses presented here have been for mixtures, not pure compounds?

 

[avidhexagrammid]

Your comments are meaningless without having built a repertoir of postings that demonstrates your ability or knowledge.

That's okay. I'm not here to convince you of anything and your comments don't mean much to me either.

Think about the context of your posts here - are you really that naive to think that a new member, coming in to a very specific, chemistry-related topic, and casting doubt in a systematic way on the work of others - who are well-known members of a community - will be perceived as anything but troll or shill?

Nope, given the conspiratorial nature and lack of objectivity throughout much of this thread, I expected there would be at least some people who were more inclined to attack me than be constructive. Wasn't expecting people to get so angry that they'd encourage admins to dox me though, that's some top-tier witch hunting. However, because this thread is supposed to be science-based, I was also expecting my questions to be answered and some objective discussion to be had.

Given the responses I've received, do you honestly think I've casted doubt on these results? Seems you've all doubled down, really. Also, science requires a systematic approach, so thanks for noticing I guess. I don't really care if you think I'm a shill, it's one of the laziest possible arguments in scientific debate and does nothing to dismantle the substance of what I've said. I've seen a lot of litigious talk around here though, so really, a similar argument regarding motivations could be applied to several others. It's important to consider bias but literally all you've done is appeal to authority and try to attack me personally.

You reek of shill. Please, enlighten us on your chops so that we can understand the expertise that you bring to this conversation and on which your seeming misunderstanding of peaks on NMR spectra is based.

Cool gatekeeping, bro. Read my comments, or don't.

 

[jcolliii]

About as vacuous and deflective as I'd imagined your response would be.

 

[jeffww]

1. The spectra look nothing alike in FTIR or NMR. Sorry.

I would put more effort in your misdirections next time.

 

[Dennis Cartier]

1. The spectra look nothing alike in FTIR or NMR. Sorry.

I would put more effort in your misdirections next time.

I was just going to point out that he somehow missed responding to Randy's post where the NMR for the 2 compounds are shown and they are not even close. Choline has 3 peaks and polixetonium has 4 peaks.

Understanding Vibrant: Algaefix, Polixetonium Chloride / Busan 77

I saw comments from UWC that 1) indicated the use of bacterial metabolites (i.e., cell free) from cyanobacteria and select Bacillus spp. that involve the production of polyaspartic acid; 2) suggested that the quat-like response is normal; and 3) that the lab who developed it is slated to present...

www.reef2reef.com

 

[reef_ranch]

At this point I’m much more interested in who you are and what your connection to UWC is than I am in understanding all this choline information. (As interesting as the abstracts you cite are). You sure have put a ton of effort into your first 23 posts in this forum than one would expect from a disinterested guy who heard about this thread on Reddit. No disrespect, but you are either being paid to post here or you have way too much time on your hands. Do you even reef, bro?

 

[LRT]

That's okay. I'm not here to convince you of anything and your comments don't mean much to me either.

Nope, given the conspiratorial nature and lack of objectivity throughout much of this thread, I expected there would be at least some people who were more inclined to attack me than be constructive. Wasn't expecting people to get so angry that they'd encourage admins to dox me though, that's some top-tier witch hunting. However, because this thread is supposed to be science-based, I was also expecting my questions to be answered and some objective discussion to be had.

Given the responses I've received, do you honestly think I've casted doubt on these results? Seems you've all doubled down, really. Also, science requires a systematic approach, so thanks for noticing I guess. I don't really care if you think I'm a shill, it's one of the laziest possible arguments in scientific debate and does nothing to dismantle the substance of what I've said. I've seen a lot of litigious talk around here though, so really, a similar argument regarding motivations could be applied to several others. It's important to consider bias but literally all you've done is appeal to authority and try to attack me personally.

Cool gatekeeping, bro. Read my comments, or don't.

That's the problem.

Alrighty.

I already provided a multitude of sources formatted as hyperlinks in a previous comment. Reef tanks aren't maintained at physiological pH, but okay. I don't understand how it's so preposterous that the proenzyme could be maintained in the bottle and become activated by potassium and magnesium ions in tank water. Cyanophycin is a suggested pathway for nitrogen uptake, I'm not saying it's correct, I'm saying it's feasible and that you guys have neglected to consider (and rule out) practical alternatives to your conspiracy theory because of how you've framed your hypotheses. Choline seems to be a much more compelling argument anyway with the data that's been collected here.


I don't see how what I've said could be perceived as gaslighting. I'm suggesting an alternative hypothesis, not making anyone question their own reality. If anyone here is somehow questioning their reality because of something I've said, then they probably didn't have a firm grasp on it to begin with.

As indicated previously: choline is a naturally produced QAC that has lytic properties on algal cell walls. Since you guys seem to prefer to observe similarities instead of considering potential differences, let's gaze upon an FT-IR spectrum of choline chloride from this paper. Shall we superimpose it with that of Vibrant? Shall we acknowledge the subtle changes that occur when it's mixed with another compound and the concentration is varied? Shall we recall that all analyses presented here have been for mixtures, not pure compounds?

Very interesting

That's the problem.

Alrighty.

I already provided a multitude of sources formatted as hyperlinks in a previous comment. Reef tanks aren't maintained at physiological pH, but okay. I don't understand how it's so preposterous that the proenzyme could be maintained in the bottle and become activated by potassium and magnesium ions in tank water. Cyanophycin is a suggested pathway for nitrogen uptake, I'm not saying it's correct, I'm saying it's feasible and that you guys have neglected to consider (and rule out) practical alternatives to your conspiracy theory because of how you've framed your hypotheses. Choline seems to be a much more compelling argument anyway with the data that's been collected here.


I don't see how what I've said could be perceived as gaslighting. I'm suggesting an alternative hypothesis, not making anyone question their own reality. If anyone here is somehow questioning their reality because of something I've said, then they probably didn't have a firm grasp on it to begin with.

As indicated previously: choline is a naturally produced QAC that has lytic properties on algal cell walls. Since you guys seem to prefer to observe similarities instead of considering potential differences, let's gaze upon an FT-IR spectrum of choline chloride from this paper. Shall we superimpose it with that of Vibrant? Shall we acknowledge the subtle changes that occur when it's mixed with another compound and the concentration is varied? Shall we recall that all analyses presented here have been for mixtures, not pure compounds?

That's okay. I'm not here to convince you of anything and your comments don't mean much to me either.

Nope, given the conspiratorial nature and lack of objectivity throughout much of this thread, I expected there would be at least some people who were more inclined to attack me than be constructive. Wasn't expecting people to get so angry that they'd encourage admins to dox me though, that's some top-tier witch hunting. However, because this thread is supposed to be science-based, I was also expecting my questions to be answered and some objective discussion to be had.

Given the responses I've received, do you honestly think I've casted doubt on these results? Seems you've all doubled down, really. Also, science requires a systematic approach, so thanks for noticing I guess. I don't really care if you think I'm a shill, it's one of the laziest possible arguments in scientific debate and does nothing to dismantle the substance of what I've said. I've seen a lot of litigious talk around here though, so really, a similar argument regarding motivations could be applied to several others. It's important to consider bias but literally all you've done is appeal to authority and try to attack me personally.

Cool gatekeeping, bro. Read my comments, or don't.

Anyone else picking up on the very subtle but super obvious nuances in style of posting between this author and another poster here? Or don't?

Also can you post a link to subreddit thread that first directed you here?

 

[avidhexagrammid]

1. The spectra look nothing alike in FTIR or NMR. Sorry.

I respectfully disagree. Seems like there's something going on there, especially when we acknowledge that Vibrant is an unknown mixture. Here's a quick and dirty merge of the choline chloride spectrum (black) and Vibrant (red). I decolorized cyan for ease of reading.

 

[avidhexagrammid]

I was just going to point out that he somehow missed responding to Randy's post where the NMR for the 2 compounds are shown and they are not even close. Choline has 3 peaks and polixetonium has 4 peaks.

Nope, I responded to that. You just somehow missed my comment. Once again, I'd like to remind you that the spectra presented here are from unknown mixtures. Mixtures. Not pure compound like the reference spectrum supplied by Randy. Mixtures. Which, again, is what I have repeatedly asked about.

 

[Jeffcb]

Wow. Just wow.
So, should we use it or not?

 

[avidhexagrammid]

At this point I’m much more interested in who you are and what your connection to UWC is than I am in understanding all this choline information. (As interesting as the abstracts you cite are). You sure have put a ton of effort into your first 23 posts in this forum than one would expect from a disinterested guy who heard about this thread on Reddit.

As I've stated repeatedly: I have no connection to UWC. The fact that you're so fixated on me rather than the substance of what I have to say is pretty concerning, friend.

I had my hypothesis somewhat formulated before I got here. I made the account to ask questions that were relevant to me determining its feasibility since not a soul here had actually questioned anything that was posted and the methodology was not entirely transparent. Major red flag to accept it all at face value considering the accusations associated with it. It actually requires minimal time and effort to find soft spots in the analyses here due to the approach that was taken.

No disrespect, but you are either being paid to post here or you have way too much time on your hands. Do you even reef, bro?

Odd that you're criticizing me and not the people who have dedicated so much of their time and resources to performing all of these assays. Love the double standards here.